My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2016-012 - California Environmental Quality Act
Clerk
>
Resolutions
>
CITY COUNCIL
>
2011 -
>
2016
>
2016-012 - California Environmental Quality Act
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/23/2016 2:21:31 PM
Creation date
2/23/2016 2:04:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Resolution
Doc #
2016-012
Date
2/2/2016
Destruction Year
P
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
77
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Statement of <br />8.0 Project Alternatives <br />CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(c) requires that an EIR analyze a reasonable range of alternatives to <br />the proposed project that could feasibly avoid or reduce any significant unavoidable impacts. The Draft <br />SIR addresses the environmental effects of alternatives to the Heritage Mixed Use project. A description of <br />these alternatives, a comparison of their environmental impacts to the proposed project, and the City's <br />findings are provided below. These alternatives are compared against the project relative to the identified <br />project impacts and the ability to meet the project objectives. <br />Alternatives Considered but Eliminated <br />CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126,6(c), states that alternatives may be eliminated from consideration in an <br />EIR if they fail to meet most of the project objectives, are infeasible, or do not avoid or substantially <br />reduce any significant environmental effects. In addition, alternatives that are. remote or speculative, or <br />the effects of which cannot be reasonably predicted, also do not need to be considered (CEQA Guidelines, <br />Section 15126.6(f)(3)), <br />Alternative Location <br />An alternative site for the proposed project was eliminated from further consideration. The project <br />applicant is the owner of the project site and does not own an alternative site within Santa Ana where the <br />proposed project could be developed. The project objectives are to redevelop an existing underatilized <br />parcel and implement a mixed use development that would provide a balance of land uses, utilize existing <br />infrastructure, providing additional housing near employment centers, and inalnove a gateway image to <br />the City, all of which are consistent with the opportunities provided by the project site. <br />The ability of the applicant to find and purchase an alternative site in Santa Ana that is large enough for <br />the proposed project and available for redevelopment — and would achieve the project obj actives - is <br />considered speculative. Furthermore, the project proposes use of the existing office structure, while an <br />alternative location would require development of a new two -story 56,000 squuaro foot office building and <br />associated surface parking that would not be required by the project and would result in greater impacts. <br />Thus, the alternative location alternative was eliminated from further consideration. <br />Alternative 1: No Project /No Build <br />CEQA also requires that a "No Project" alternative be considered. Additionally, CEQA requires that an <br />EIR identify the environmentally "superior alternative." If the "No Project" alternative is determined to <br />be the envirommentally superior alternative, the EIR shall also identify an onviromnentally superior <br />alternative among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)(2)). <br />Under this alternative, no development would occur on the project site. The project site has a City of <br />Santa Ana, General Plan Land Use designation as PAO (Professional and Administrative Office) and is <br />zoned as M -1 (Light Industrial). Under Alternative 1, the existing office, data center, and warehousing <br />uses onsite would remain and the existing uses would continue to operate, pursuant to the existing lease <br />agreements. <br />The Henlage Mlxed Use Protect 41 ESA 1 140730 <br />Sln lament of Facts and Findings Seplambor 2015 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.